9.  Mrs Lászlóné Nyírő (“the first applicant”) was born in 1947 and lives in Budapest. Mrs Lajosné Takács (“the second applicant”) was born in 1944 and lives in Budaörs, Hungary.
10.  In the late 1980s the applicants, employed by a State-owned Hungarian company, were working in Tengiz, at a mineral, oil and gas mining construction site in Kazakhstan (former USSR).
11.  On account of various obscure illnesses, the applicants were forced to retire prematurely. The applicants pointed out in their observations that they became disability pensioners after their return to Hungary.
12.  On 16 December 1991 the first applicant brought an action before the Budapest Labour Court. She claimed that her illnesses had been caused by the hazardous working environment in Tengiz and that her former employer should be ordered to pay her compensation.
13.  The first hearing in the case took place on 11 March 1993. On that occasion, two witnesses were heard and a medical expert was appointed. On 17 June 1993 another hearing was held and a chemistry institute was designated to provide an expert opinion.
14.  Following the first applicant’s complaint to the Ministry of Justice about the slowness of the procedure, on 15 May 1995 another bench was assigned to deal with the case.
15.  Another hearing took place on 30 August 1995. An expert witness failed to appear at the hearing. According to the Government’s observations, the defendant was ordered to file with the court the expert opinions which had been previously drawn up in connection with the construction work in Tengiz. The court decided that further experts should be appointed, if necessary, in the light of the documents to be submitted by the defendant company.
16.  On 26 March 1996 the judge in charge of the case specified the questions to be put to the chemistry institute. On 2 October 1996 the institute declined to give answers to the questions put by the court as it had no experts available who could address such complex matters.
17.  On 21 January 1997 the Budapest Technical University, which was subsequently appointed as the expert institution, also declined to carry out the examination as it lacked the competence to deal with air-pollution matters.
18.  At the request of the first applicant’s lawyer, her proceedings were joined to those of the second applicant on 10 June 1997.
19.  On 22 July 1991 the second applicant brought an action before the Budapest Labour Court against her former employer for compensation for damage caused by work-related illnesses. The first hearing was held on 19 March 1992. However, the second applicant failed to appear.
20.  The next hearing was held on 9 July 1993. However, the second applicant did not attend the hearing. The court ordered the defendant company to submit various expert opinions as well as the results of medical examinations carried out on other persons employed at Tengiz.
21.  At a hearing on 17 January 1995 the second applicant was heard and her doctor was invited to submit the second applicant’s medical files.
22.  On 26 April 1996 the court appointed a medical expert. On 26 September 1996 the medical expert submitted his opinion. He relied on the previously submitted medical files, as the second applicant refused to undergo further medical examinations.
23.  At a hearing on 26 November 1996, the court appointed a legal aid lawyer at the second applicant’s request and the medical expert’s opinion was discussed.
24.  Further hearings were held on 28 January, 11 March and 15 April 1997. On these occasions, several witnesses failed to appear, but four witnesses, including experts in the area of chemistry and labour protection, were heard. Numerous related documents were examined and further clarifications were sought from an ophthalmologist.
25.  At the hearing on 10 June 1997 the Labour Court heard a third plaintiff in the case. Moreover, a report from 1991 on an on-site inspection at Tengiz presented by the National Labour Institute was discussed by the parties. The court confirmed that an expert in the fields of geology and oil had still to be designated.
26.  At a hearing on 9 September 1997, five witnesses, including four experts, were heard.
27.  In 1998 yet another judge was assigned to deal with the case. At the hearing on 30 September 1998 an expert in the field of toxicology was heard.
28.  Subsequently, the first applicant extended her action against the Hungarian State, as was permitted under section 146 § 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On 16 November 1998 the State was ordered by the court to join the proceedings as the second defendant.
29.  At a hearing on 18 January 1999, at which five witnesses failed to appear, the Labour Court appointed several institutions to act as experts as well as a medical expert to examine the first applicant.
30.  On 28 January 1999 the second applicant also extended her action against the Hungarian State. On 2 February 1999 she modified her claims.
31.  At a hearing on 3 March 1999, the judge in charge of the case issued an order urging the appointed expert institutions to submit their opinions. She repeatedly ordered that the first applicant be examined by a medical expert and that writs be served on witnesses.
32.  At a hearing on 28 April 1999 two witnesses were not present and three others were heard. On 14 December 1999 a medical expert opinion on the first applicant’s condition was filed.
33.  On 18 and 21 January 2000 the applicants made their final submissions to the Labour Court.
34.  On 21 February 2000 the Labour Court delivered its judgment in which it found the Hungarian State liable to the applicants. In so far as the applicants’ claims had been directed against their former employer, the Labour Court discontinued the proceedings.
35.  The Labour Court awarded the first applicant 1,905,000 Hungarian forints (HUF), plus accrued interest, by way of compensation for pecuniary damage, HUF 1 million for non-pecuniary damage and HUF 154,250 for legal costs. It awarded the second applicant HUF 1,710,000, plus accrued interest, for pecuniary damage, HUF 1 million for non-pecuniary damage and HUF 144,500 for legal costs. Both applicants were awarded pro futuro a monthly allowance of HUF 15,000. The remainder of their claims was dismissed.
36.  The judgment was corrected and supplemented on 6 May 2000. In June 2000 the applicants and the Hungarian State appealed.
37.  On 22 September 2000 the Budapest Regional Court held a hearing and appointed the Forensic Committee of the Scientific Health Council to review the previous medical opinions. A hearing scheduled for 17 January 2001 was postponed twice.
38.  Meanwhile, the applicants were examined by the Scientific Health Council on 13 December 2000 and its review of the various opinions was submitted on 19 March 2001.
39.  In a judgment delivered on 11 May 2001, the Regional Court, as regards the Hungarian State, quashed the first instance decision and discontinued the proceedings. The court also quashed the first instance judgment in the part concerning the first defendant and, in this respect, dismissed the applicants’ action.
40.  On 28 February 2002, on the parties’ petition for review, the Supreme Court quashed, in regard to the applicants, the first and second instance decisions and remitted them to the first instance court. It held that the second instance decision relied on contradictory expert opinions, that a more thorough taking of evidence was required and that the responsibility of the Hungarian State in the matter was unclear.
41.  In the resumed proceedings, a hearing took place on 30 September 2002. A further hearing was scheduled for 30 November 2002. The proceedings are pending at first instance.